Canoanele si Dreptul canonic · The 32nd Canon of Quinisext Synod as an authentic interpretation of mike – 5 May 0 · Drept penal bisericesc. , –, –; Floca, Drept canonic ortodox, vol. II, p. .. Milaş, N., , Dreptul bisericesc oriental, Bucureşti, Tipografia „Gutenberg”. Milaş, N., 24 N. Milaş: Dreptul bisericesc oriental, p. 25 I.N. Floca: Drept canonic orthodox. Legislaţie şi administraţie bisericească. Vol. II. Bucureşti , p.

Author: Milabar Zolojinn
Country: Jamaica
Language: English (Spanish)
Genre: Life
Published (Last): 14 March 2016
Pages: 285
PDF File Size: 9.62 Mb
ePub File Size: 3.70 Mb
ISBN: 415-7-81817-522-3
Downloads: 71574
Price: Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]
Uploader: Goltitilar

The divine authority of the principles established by the Holy Apostles in organizing and governing the Church cannot be put in doubt. This term was not used in history, but is recent, although it refers to ecclesiological realities present even since the apostolic era. The two terms, autocephaly and autonomy, were equally used, as synonyms, because both of them express the rapport of independence of the Churches from de similar ecclesiastical organizations in ecumenical orthodoxy flcoaalthough there are differentiations, as we will see below.

Thus, the autocephaly of local Churches, formed in the ethnic framework, is mentioned by the 34th apostolic canon, as we affirmed, its dispositions being taken over by other canons too, these ones showing the criteria for the establishment of the identity of a Church: We may say that forms of autocephaly exist nowadays too in the Roman-Catholic Church, but without being referred as autocephalies. We find the historical ground for the constitution of the biericesc in the ecclesiastical history and tradition, the whole ecclesiastical regulation being settled as customary law and then found in the text of the canons, precisely on the long practice basis.

The principles of ecclesiastical organization and leading, together with the spiritual means at the disposal of the Church for the fulfillment of its existential purpose, were going to ensure, in time, the unity of the Church, with all the diversity of nations and languages of those who were becoming subjects of law in the Church, through the administration of the Holy Sacrament of Baptism.

Complete autocephalies may exist even without the express approval of an ecumenical synod, the ecclesiastical autocephalous units being able to constitute themselves either spontaneously, or through autocephaly proclamation acts issued by certain existent autocephalous Churches. We cannot see this as an attribution of jurisdictional rights over the entire Diaspora. LXXVno. In place of a conclusion: All these are easier to understand by considering the divine Revelation of the Old and the New Testament.

The Holy Apostles, being conscious of their unique and unrepeatable authority received from Savior Jesus Christ, enjoying universal jurisdiction by virtue of the extraordinary grace of apostolacy, preached the Gospel of our Savior Jesus Christ as far as the ends of the world Bisrricesc The bishoprics, which were initially autocephalous, kept only the autonomy of one of another, together forming the autocephalous metropolitanates, which later were going to become autonomous, too, in the bosom of exarchates and the in biseircesc patriarchates 9th, 12th, 17th, 28th cans.


IV ec; 8th, 36th, 38th can VI ec. This fact is expressed by the 2nd canon from the II Ecumenical Synod, which establish that all the Diasporas outside the Roman Empire to be governed by the bishops who had the respective area under their jurisdiction, before dtept occupied by the barbarians.

Drept canonic

Lecturer Iulian Mihai L. I ec; 2nd, 3rd cans. Notes and comments Canoanele Bisericii Ortodoxe.

Any pretention of an autocephalous Church to have jurisdiction over other autocephalous Churches or over their Diasporas was against the teaching of the Vrept Bible and the canons of the Orthodox Church. It is not taken into account the fact that every autocephalous Orthodox Church has its own specificity given by the traditions of the respective nation and by its ethnical character, all these assuring its originality and identity [49].

Although present in the life of the Church — the rights of the autocephalous local Churches being mentioned in the text of numerous canons of the Ecumenical and local Synods — bisericssc term of autocephaly does not appear in any canon. We will mention below some actual aspects regarding the canonical territories of the autocephalous Churches and flocs application of this notion to the jurisdictions.

Iorga, Bloc A 53, Sc. Liviu Stan shows, standard autocephalous units [20]. Although there were — and still are — numerous dissension regarding the institution of autocephaly and the ecclesiastical jurisdictions, all canonists accept that the interpretation of the canons that concern the principle of autocephaly and the other principles in tight connection it can be realized only in the light of the historical data, data which must also be related to the orthodox canonical doctrine [2].

We respond here to the Greek theologian through the words of an authoritarian voice of the Orthodoxy from the 20th century, the greatest orthodox dogmatist of his time, Fr. However, like some exarchates or flcoa, some metropolitanates kept their autocephaly, too, either as metropolitanates or as archbishoprics [21] ; we could mention here the Metropolitanate of Tomis [22] or the Archbishopric of Cyprus, which has remained autocephalous until nowadays 8th can.


A century later, the Fathers of the fourth Ecumenical Synod from Chalcedonthrough the 28th canon, a controversial one [34]unaccepted by the Roman-Catholic Church and long debated in the ecumenical Orthodoxy, recognized the jurisdiction of the Constantinopolitan seat over the dioceses of Asia, Pontus and Thrace.

We could say that with the same purpose — the defending of the interests of Hellenism — a decade later, inthe Patriarchy of Constantinople was retaking into its jurisdiction the whole Greek orthodox Diaspora, working nowadays, too, in tight cooperation with the Greek Church and with the Greek state to promote the values, traditions and interests of Hellenism on all the continents [52].

Iulian Mihai L. CONSTANTINESCU: The principle of ecclesiastical autocephaly

The ethnic principle was invoked by Churches to obtain their independence of foreign jurisdictions — the case of Georgian or Russian Church; the Ecumenical Patriarchy itself quoted the text of the 34th apostolic canon at the recognition of the autocephaly of the Russian Church The canonical regulations concerning the organization of an autocephalous Church were established in time, by ecclesiastical practice, being the true expression of the canonical and dogmatic principle established in canons, firstly in the text of the apostolic canons and subsequently through the authentic interpretation of these by the ecumenical and local synods in their canonical work.

The proclamation of autocephaly by the mother-Church means, in fact, the execution of this act in the name of the Ecumenical Church, by exercising the authority that the whole Church biseeicesc solidarily [28].

Another regulation is the bisrricesc recognition of the autocephaly [27]being necessary the recognition and acceptance in the orthodox communion of the ibsericesc Church by all the autocephalous Churches; it is also necessary the agreement of the state on whose territory the autocephalous Church is constituted. The same manner, the bishops are not allowed to ordain outside their diocese 35th apost.

But, from all these does not result that only the ecumenical synod is able to confer a complete autocephaly. Liviu Stan [3] noted, the new theses [4] issued at the half of the 20th century, besides their provocative character in Orthodoxy, ignored the dogmatic and canonical principles of the Orthodox Church, through these contesting the very canonicity of the proclamation acts of autocephaly by the ancient patriarchates.